A name change for Mr. Satan in the Broadcast?

[Zep]

When they reinstate the name in the uncut DVDs, they should have some fun with it and just go the whole hog; when Mr. Satan appears, have the crowds chant "Hail Satan!"

[batistabus]

I'm not sure if I'm understanding correctly or not, but do you guys actually think they would even consider Mark? I mean, I can see why you would want it (even though I personally do not agree it would be the best choice), but do you actually think they would do it?

If they wanted a name that was at least accurate, then yes.

Accurate to what? Something Toriyama pulled out of his ass in an interview? Something that's never been used or even been mentioned in any Dragon Ball storyline, movie, or video game?

I'm not saying Hercule is a good choice, it's just the safest choice. It's more than likely going to happen.

When they reinstate the name in the uncut DVDs, they should have some fun with it and just go the whole hog; when Mr. Satan appears, have the crowds chant "Hail Satan!"

I will not be satisfied unless I get a "We love Satan!" or "This just in; Satan has saved the world!"

[MR.Mark]

I'm not sure if I'm understanding correctly or not, but do you guys actually think they would even consider Mark? I mean, I can see why you would want it (even though I personally do not agree it would be the best choice), but do you actually think they would do it?

If they wanted a name that was at least accurate, then yes.

Accurate to what? Something Toriyama pulled out of his ass in an interview?

Pulled out of his ass during an interview, pulled out of his ass while drawing the manga, what's the difference? Who cares if he came up with it later? Why fans would prefer a made up Funi name VS. something Toriyama came up with himself is beyond me.

[Rocketman]

Pulled out of his ass during an interview, pulled out of his ass while drawing the manga, what's the difference?

The difference is Toriyama's lost it a bit since he wrote the manga. See: "tails are recessive".

[batistabus]

Pulled out of his ass during an interview, pulled out of his ass while drawing the manga, what's the difference? Who cares if he came up with it later? Why fans would prefer a made up Funi name VS. something Toriyama came up with himself is beyond me.

I don't prefer Hercule. Mark would be cool and everything, a neat little acknowledgment if it were to be mentioned at one point, but that's not enough for FUNimation to constantly refer to the character as that. Chances are they stay with what they've done, and without a doubt include Satan on the home release. They did it with Special Beam Cannon, they'll do it again.

The difference is Toriyama's lost it a bit since he wrote the manga. See: "tails are recessive".

For those of you who haven't taken a basic Biology class...

[linkdude20002001]

Hercule is "more accurate" because it doesn't change his name from "Mr. Satan" to something else, even when they don't call him Mr. Satan. It's understood that Hercule is his first name while Satan is his last. Therefore, it's "more accurate" in the sense that he never stops being "Mr. Satan." Calling him Mark all of a sudden makes Mr. Satan a pseudonym which goes back to Toriyama toying with ideas he never published in the work. Just because it's the author playing with ideas doesn't automatically make them relevant to what he authored. He has to actually do something with those ideas before they become "canon."

Mr Satan is not supposed to be his name; it's his stage name. By making up the name Hercule Satan for him, you're messing with two characters' names: "Mr Satan" and Videl.
FUNimation says his name is Hercule Satan, and Toriyama says his name is Mark (with the stage name Mr Satan). Which one should be considered of higher importance? Toriyama's opinion.

And in case you haven't noticed, official guidebooks are taken as canon. They give all sorts of neat information; such as character height and weight, real names, etc. I haven't heard of anyone saying L's real name isn't L Lawliet just because it wasn't mentioned in the comic series itself.

[Cowboy Dev]

What's more important than the Word of God? FUNimation? I don't think so.

[TonyTheTiger]

I already did. Hercule is "more accurate" because it doesn't change his name from "Mr. Satan" to something else, even when they don't call him Mr. Satan. It's understood that Hercule is his first name while Satan is his last. Therefore, it's "more accurate" in the sense that he never stops being "Mr. Satan."

Again, this is assuming we are going to hear the word "Satan" uttered on Nicktoons, which I don't think is a safe bet.

I don't think it matters. Entire episodes of Batman have gone without anybody ever calling him Bruce but that doesn't mean his name stops being Bruce Wayne just because he's never outright called it. Just because the TV airing only uses Hercule doesn't mean he stops being Mr. Satan. Even when he's only called Hercule, the implication is that his name is Mr. Hercule Satan.

Pulled out of his ass during an interview, pulled out of his ass while drawing the manga, what's the difference? Who cares if he came up with it later?

That's a pretty big difference right there. You can't pooh-pooh it away as a non-issue. What if tomorrow he decides, "No, wait. His name is Gilgamesh." And then the next day he decides, "Nah, you know what? Mark is better." Would that mean he just make the quickest retcon and re-retcon in the history of fiction? People do this all the time when they write stuff. I do it myself. You brainstorm and flip flop over different issues. Sometimes you scrap entire plot points. But when it comes down to it, what you publish is the end result of all that work.

Just because Toriyama mentioned that one thing in an interview doesn't make it any more relevant than the 100,000 other things that I'm sure he had in his mind that never made it to the final product. What if we found some of his private notes and they mentioned a bunch of stuff Toriyama never used? Extra characters that may or may not exist, different names for people, new powers, etc.? What if one of these notes says how Freeza gained his power by stealing the souls of his most powerful vanquished foes? Now all of a sudden it's official that Freeza = Shang Tsung?

So as far as I'm concerned, Mark may not be any less accurate than Hercule but it certainly isn't any more. At least Hercule has some publication precedent rather than just some idea tossed around in an interview.

[MR.Mark]

The difference is Toriyama's lost it a bit since he wrote the manga. See: "tails are recessive".

He also made Vegeta say his tail would grow back and it never did.

What if tomorrow he decides, "No, wait. His name is Gilgamesh." And then the next day he decides, "Nah, you know what? Mark is better." Would that mean he just make the quickest retcon and re-retcon in the history of fiction? People do this all the time when they write stuff. I do it myself. You brainstorm and flip flop over different issues. Sometimes you scrap entire plot points. But when it comes down to it, what you publish is the end result of all that work.

Just because Toriyama mentioned that one thing in an interview doesn't make it any more relevant than the 100,000 other things that I'm sure he had in his mind that never made it to the final product. What if we found some of his private notes and they mentioned a bunch of stuff Toriyama never used? Extra characters that may or may not exist, different names for people, new powers, etc.? What if one of these notes says how Freeza gained his power by stealing souls? Now all of a sudden it's official that Freeza = Shang Tsung?

So as far as I'm concerned, Mark may not be any less accurate than Hercule but it certainly isn't any more. At least Hercule has some publication precedent rather than just some idea tossed around in an interview.

Eh, that's a lot of 'what ifs" in your argument there. At the end of the day, what we're debating about is a simple name, and a name doesn't change the story in any way whatsoever. All I'm saying is, I'd rather a name Toriyama pulled out of his ass, than a name Funi did, that's just common sense to me. That a fan prefer something the author came up with over some dubbing company. I like Mark, and don't see how it rapes his holy manga in any negative way. So until the day Toriyama makes Freeza a soul stealer, I'll get back to you.

As for publication precedent, does that make "cultivores" relevant? If you don't like the name Mark, that's all fine and good, but saying a name made up by a dubbing company has more precedent then the author himself?

[B]

I don't think it matters. Entire episodes of Batman have gone without anybody ever calling him Bruce but that doesn't mean his name stops being Bruce Wayne just because he's never outright called it. Just because the TV airing only uses Hercule doesn't mean he stops being Mr. Satan. Even when he's only called Hercule, the implication is that his name is Mr. Hercule Satan.

How can it be implied if "Mr. Satan" is completely absent? If that happens, it's a change in his name, simple as that. Was it implied that Ten's name was Tien Shinhan anywhere in the Z dub?

Accurate to what? Something Toriyama pulled out of his ass in an interview? Something that's never been used or even been mentioned in any Dragon Ball storyline, movie, or video game?

Unless it's specified as something different, all guides and databooks coincide with the manga's storyline. Movies and video games are nonsense. And "pulled out of his ass?" It has a whole segment in a guide.

[linkdude20002001]

Just because the TV airing only uses Hercule doesn't mean he stops being Mr. Satan. Even when he's only called Hercule, the implication is that his name is Mr. Hercule Satan.

Go read my previous reply to you. I just told you that him being called Mr Satan does not mean his surname is Satan; it's a stage name. In the series itself, he has no name. By calling him Hercule Satan, they're spreading misinformation and lies. It would be better to just call him Mark. Even if it's adding a name that wasn't originally there, at least you're adding a name that's correct in the eyes of Toriyama, rather than adding a name that's not only wrong, but changes the name of his daughter as well.

[TonyTheTiger]

I don't really care one way or the other about the name Mark itself. I actually think the pun, albeit a reeeeal stretch, is kinda neat. I'm just not sure whether an author of a work has that much control once he's done actually working on it. Those examples may have been "What ifs" but they're the logical extension of the argument that the name Mark is "official." I see the name Mark as something that could be official should Toriyama actually run with the idea and do something with it. But I don't think just saying something is sufficient.

Here's another logical extension. What if during that same interview he said that he thinks Goku actually died on Namek and everything that followed was a hallucination he went through on his way to the afterlife? Sure, that's obviously more absurd than Mark, but it just goes to show that merely saying something isn't enough. I'd imagine if it were a more outrageous comment people wouldn't be so quick to accept it based on just that. Are we going to accept independent commentary from Toriyama like this only when its easy to swallow?

Just because the TV airing only uses Hercule doesn't mean he stops being Mr. Satan. Even when he's only called Hercule, the implication is that his name is Mr. Hercule Satan.

Go read my previous reply to you. I just told you that him being called Mr Satan does not mean his surname is Satan; it's a stage name. In the series itself, he has no name. By calling him Hercule Satan, they're spreading misinformation and lies. It would be better to just call him Mark. Even if it's adding a name that wasn't originally there, at least you're adding a name that's correct in the eyes of Toriyama, rather than adding a name that's not only wrong, but changes the name of his daughter as well.

The stage name thing is just as independent as the Mark thing. It doesn't have much of a foundation in the published material. You'd think that once Mr. Satan became intimately related to Gohan and the gang they'd be on a first name basis. I doubt Hulk Hogan's son-in-law regularly calls him The Hulkster.

[linkdude20002001]

The stage name thing is just as independent as the Mark thing. It doesn't have much of a foundation in the published material. You'd think that once Mr. Satan became intimately related to Gohan and the gang they'd be on a first name basis. I doubt Hulk Hogan's son-in-law regularly calls him The Hulkster.

Well Satan is certainly not his surname. Just like with Dr Brief, FUNimation tries to pretend it's his surname, when in reality it's his given name. The Sons are the only ones with surnames in the Dragon World.

[Herms]

Just because Toriyama mentioned that one thing in an interview doesn't make it any more relevant than the 100,000 other things that I'm sure he had in his mind that never made it to the final product.

Of course it does. Why on Earth wouldn't it? This isn't Toriyama going "yeah, I tossed that idea around for a bit", this is him flat-out saying that Mister Satan's real name is Mark.

What if we found some of his private notes and they mentioned a bunch of stuff Toriyama never used? Extra characters that may or may not exist, different names for people, new powers, etc.? What if one of these notes says how Freeza gained his power by stealing the souls of his most powerful vanquished foes? Now all of a sudden it's official that Freeza = Shang Tsung?

That's not the situation here though. If Toriyama said in an interview that Freeza stole souls, then yeah, that would make it official. Why wouldn't it? Authors adding in details after the fact like this isn't even remotely uncommon in fiction.

So as far as I'm concerned, Mark may not be any less accurate than Hercule but it certainly isn't any more. At least Hercule has some publication precedent rather than just some idea tossed around in an interview.

There's an official published interview where Toriyama says in no uncertain terms that his name is Mark. How is that not publication precedent?

[TonyTheTiger]

I don't mean publication in just anything. I mean publication in the work itself.

You ever hear from authors how their characters sometimes take on a life of their own? Like how sometimes the story just seems to write itself? This is a little philosophical but I think that it's possible once a story is released it stops being in the author's absolute control. The story becomes its own entity with its own rules and facts. The author can return to it and embellish or change things, but his "word" so to speak is by itself not sufficient once the work has already been released to the public. It's already a separate entity with its own set of facts. He'd have to take more active steps to change things now than just declaring a new fact like word of God. Much like how once a carpenter builds a house he can't just will something to change and then have it happen automatically. He has to do more work for the change to manifest.

[Herms]

Eh, sorry but I don't see why any of that would be true. You don't seem to have any real arguments for it either, you just keep saying that Toriyama's word alone isn't sufficient, repeating this idea in different ways, without giving any actual reasons why it would be so. Toriyama created the character Mister Satan. Toriyama has said that Mister Satan's real name is Mark. There is nothing in the actual story of DragonBall to contradict this idea. I don't see how your random philosophical musings are of any relevance here.

[TonyTheTiger]

Because literary critics do it all the time. They interpret the language of a work without much consideration for what the author was thinking when he wrote it. What the critics care about is what the words actually say. Superfluous information is irrelevant when the work itself (the language, plotting, and everything within the pages) is what matters. I didn't pull this out of my ass. There's substantial precedent for it in academia. You're free to disagree with the theory but it very much exists and is relevant to this issue.

And you can't just pretend I didn't provide an argument for it. The theory itself is an argument because if it is true then Mark is not canon yet.

[Herms]

Because literary critics do it all the time. They interpret the language of a work without much consideration for what the author was thinking when he wrote it. What the critics care about is what the words actually say. Superfluous information is irrelevant when the work itself (the language, plotting, and everything within the pages) is what matters.

This isn't literary criticism. Interpreting a work is different from deciding what is true about a fictional universe from an "in-universe" perspective. If you want to interpret DragonBall as a metaphor for Japan's Bubble Economy period, or the Spanish-American war, or photosynthesis, then no, Toriyama saying that isn't what he had in mind when writing the story can't stop you. But if you want to discuss in-universe information about DB characters, like what their names are, Toriyama still has the final say, because he's the guy who created that universe and those characters.

Let's use Lord of the Rings as an example. In the actual trilogy, no detailed information about Sauron's origins is given, and it wasn't until the Silmarillion was published that people learned he was an Ainur and all that jazz. Now, you're free to interpret the story of Lord of the Rings any way you want. You could try to interpret it in a Jewish or Atheistic light, even though Tolkien himself was Christian and therefore almost certainly didn't have those ideas in mind while writing it. But you are not free to say that Sauron was originally a dinosaur or a fruit bat just because his origins are only explored in supplemental material

[TonyTheTiger]

If you don't think literary criticism is concerned with the basic plot of a story then you're looking at it narrowly. Don't dodge the theory. The theory is that the work is separate from the creator. That can be taken pretty far. That basic principle can logically extends to superfluous commentary by the creator separate from the work itself.

It doesn't really matter, of course. Like I said, I don't dislike Mark being his name. The situation just feels awfully cheap.

[Herms]

If you don't think literary criticism is concerned with the basic plot of a story then you're looking at it narrowly.

That's not really what I'm saying. I added in an example about The Lord of the Rings to my last post, hopefully that will make my point clearer.